Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01290
Original file (ND02-01290.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-FR, USN
Docket No. ND02-01290

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 020911, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to Re code upgrade. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The Applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 030722. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discovered an impropriety in the narrative reason for separation but no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change, but that the narrative reason for discharge will change. The discharge shall change to: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/Secretarial Authority, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630900.

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as submitted

1. At time of discharge I was attending a Captains Mast. I was charged with 4 felonies and found not guilty due to my innocence. Another charge of false official statement was added on and my punishment was to be Administrate separation. For my time in the service I should have got a Dishonorable discharge, but if that were the case I could have fought the separation. My case would have shown that my captain had in 4 months discharged 7 women before me and the very next day resigned as Commanding Officer due to and or various charges of sexual harassment. I believe this to have been unfair and unjust. My request for change of my "RE" code to be upgraded to a code that would enable me to further my career. In these troubling times I feel that all branches of the military need Patriotic and committed people to help fight terrorism . I am already trained and would be beneficial to any person/s whom I have to worker under. My track record on the job shows for my desire to succeed. I would give anything to have the chance at one more tour in the Navy. I hope that as you read this you will upgrade my reenlistment code for my second chance. I believe along with others that I have what it takes.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:
Applicant 's DD Form 214 (Service 2)
Character reference, dated July 19, 2002
Job/character reference, undated

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     960927 - 961107  ELS
                  USNR (DEP)      970129 - 970210  COG
         Active: None

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 970211               Date of Discharge: 971117

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 00 09 07
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 20                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 42

 Highest Rate: FR

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 2.00 (1)    Behavior: 1.00 (1)                OTA: 2.00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: None

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

970828:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence on 970824, violation of UCMJ, Article 87: Missing ship's movement on 970824.
         Award: Restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.
970926:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 107: False official statement on 970830.
         Award: Processed for administrative separation. No indication of appeal in the record.
971110:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.
971113:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation and the right to submit a statement.

971123:  Commanding Officer directed discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 971117 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was not proper but was equitable (C and D).

Issue 1. The Board found that the applicant should have received a retention warning prior to her being processed for administrative separation for a pattern of misconduct. Since the record indicates that the applicant never received the retention warning, the Board found that the narrative reason for separation was improper. Relief is therefore granted for a change to the narrative reason for separation.

The Board found that in the Applicant’s case, the characterization of service should have been the “type warranted by service record.” A review of Applicant’s records indicated a general (under honorable conditions) discharge was warranted. The Applicant’s behavior marks were below the standard required for an honorable discharge. While she may feel that she was treated unfairly by her chain of command, the record is devoid of evidence that the Applicant was not responsible for her conduct or that she should not be held accountable for her actions. Relief for the characterization of service is therefore denied.

Concerning a change in reenlistment code, the NDRB has no authority to change reenlistment codes or make recommendations to permit reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Naval Service or any other branch of the Armed Forces. Neither a less than fully honorable discharge nor an unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, a bar to reenlistment. A request for waiver is normally done only during the processing of a formal application for enlistment through a recruiter. Relief on this issue is therefore denied.

 The Applicant is reminded that she remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of her discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, Change 14, effective 03 Oct 96 until 11 Dec 97), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT – A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ afls14.jag.af.mil ”.

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00752

    Original file (ND00-00752.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-SN, USN Docket No. 971124: Applicant advised of his rights and having elected to consult consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.971231: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01086

    Original file (ND00-01086.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND00-01086 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 000926, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION I felt that I was cheated out of this great opportunity by my chain of command.

  • USMC | DRB | 2002_Marine | MD02-01317

    Original file (MD02-01317.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD02-01317 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020910, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. Not appealed.000918: Commanding Officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00846

    Original file (ND02-00846.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00846 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020530, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans’ benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01075

    Original file (ND01-01075.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    While I was in the military I received two good conducts and two honorable discharge. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 880817 - 920813 HON USN 920814 - 960523 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 880815 - 880816 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 960524 Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00216

    Original file (ND02-00216.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00216 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020108, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the Board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. A review of the applicant’s service record, medical record, and additional documentation submitted indicates no such error or injustice occurred during the applicant’s enlistment.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00847

    Original file (ND01-00847.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND01-00847 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 010612, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or entry level separation or uncharacterized and the reason for the discharge be changed to (left blank). These are things that I didn't do in the Navy. Evidence of continuing educational pursuits, an employment record, documentation of community service, certification of non-involvement with civil authorities and...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00213

    Original file (ND00-00213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION Award: Forfeiture of $300 per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days, reduction to SR. No indication of appeal in the record.971117: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense as evidenced by service record entries, misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by all punishments under the UCMJ in...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01472

    Original file (ND03-01472.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Additional issues submitted by Applicant’s counsel/representative (AMERICAN LEGION): ________________________________________________________________________In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the following statement in support of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00055

    Original file (ND00-00055.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).In the applicant’s issue 1, the Board determined this issue is without merit. Unfortunately, the NDRB is under no obligation to upgrade a discharge because the ex-member was young, stupid and immature, at the time of his service, or because the member wants a discharge he can proudly display. The NDRB reviews the...